(Reprise) In 1990, after a varied career in senior management in primary schools and a growing dissatisfaction with the National Curriculum and SATs, I deliberately dropped off the career ladder and happily found myself running a nursery class in a school in an inner London borough. Lesley Staggs was our Early Years Inspector, and ours was one of a few schools that were offered funding to develop an 'Early Years Unit'. This was several years before the establishment of the Foundation Stage, but, as someone who desperately wanted to safeguard reception children from the vagaries of the National Curriculum, I was very keen to be involved. Setting up and developing the unit was hard and extremely challenging, but without doubt, satisfying and fulfilling. For the first time, I found myself able to provide what I felt to be an appropriate learning environment for both nursery and reception children and to explore and begin to develop effective methods of planning and assessment that were truly appropriate to their needs. What is a Foundation Stage Unit? What it most definitely is not is a means to introduce more formal schooling at an earlier age. Indeed, the aim was to prolong the benefits of good nursery and pre-school experience and ultimately reduce the potential trauma of change and upheaval for young children. In my first article I outlined some of the possible models for foundation stage units, although the Unit I was involved with began as a nursery class with 25 full time places and increased to a total of 90 children - 45 nursery and 45 reception age - integrated totally with each other, in a defined, secured area, within a primary school. Our aim was: To create a play-based, emotionally and physically secure environment where nursery and reception age children would be totally integrated and would not have to experience another move until the start of Y1. The First Ten years! In this article I will attempt to give a flavour of how we organised our setting. The school was an old Victorian 3 decker building, in an inner-city area with a multicultural intake. As this was a Local Authority initiative a limited amount of money was provided for refurbishment and a small extension to the ground floor. Organisation and staffing We became a 90 FT place unit, with 45 nursery and 45 reception age children. The children were organised into 3 'care groups,' each with a home base on a carpeted area. Each care group included both nursery and reception age children, roughly half and half and a teacher and nursery nurse had responsibility for each group. Other staff included varying numbers of bilingual and ESL staff, learning support staff for children with statements and primary helper /teaching assistant staff, depending on the children we had and available funds at any one time. By using allocations for support staff hours for both nursery and reception, we were often able to create a full time post for one person, out of a jumble of sporadic hours with different people. Although the teacher/ nursery nurse partnership were responsible for the admission, settling and specific record keeping for their group of children, all adults would interact regularly with all children. Having a loosely- based 'key-worker' system was important for children and parents to ensure that no - one felt lost in the busy, free-flow environment and the children enjoyed having their own 'carpet' to go to at special times. I was adamant that in setting up such a unit, we should not provide benefits for one age group of children, at the expense of another. We wanted to make sure that we held onto the good nursery practice already in existence, and that we made the most of this opportunity to review and refine our practice. We established our priorities and principles, and worked hard to ensure that we didn't lose sight of them, as we grew into a much larger and more diverse setting. I think it was significant that we expanded and grew upwards from the nursery. It wasn't simply a merging of the 'reception people' and the 'nursery people'. New staff were appointed to work specifically in the unit as we grew, (from the original nursery team of two experienced primary helpers and I), so we were fortunate not to experience any territorial rivalry! But I think this can often be an issue in some settings, particularly in the development stage and co-ordinators need to work skilfully to enable new teams to gel and develop common goals. Parents and Families We were aware that parents, expecting their reception age children to move from the nursery into the 'big school' might well be concerned to be told that they were to stay with us for another whole year in the nursery, and so we held a meeting to share our proposals with them. We were very surprised and delighted to discover that many parents were concerned, just like us, about their children's emotional well being and security and were relieved to hear that their children would not have to negotiate a change in staff, or rooms or playground, until they were a whole year older. How poorly we judge our parents sometimes! They were just as keen as we were that reception age children shouldn't have to go a long distance to the toilet, eat their lunch in a noisy dinner hall, or cope as best as they could with the big children in the playground. And they seemed prepared to trust us that the learning would continue too. Over the years we did have parents who raised concerns about their reception age children becoming bored or not 'stretched enough' by remaining in the unit, and we worked hard at maintaining a high level of parental involvement, in order to help parents and families better understand the principles and processes of early education. And the majority of parents always returned to us later, to say that, over time, they did begin to understand what we were doing - and how their children had benefitted. It was interesting to observe, over time, the shift in our parents' perceptions of early childhood education in that they expected their reception age children to have access to toys, role play areas, sand and water and outdoor play, etc. Being able to establish a relationship with new families over the 2 years of their child's time with us, made a huge difference to the levels of parental involvement, and ultimately to involvement throughout the school as children (and their families) moved into KS1 and 2. It also meant that we often worked with sibling groups, in a way that is less likely in a chronological year group. We saw how beneficial this could be for many children, particularly when they were settling, but we were also careful to ensure that children had space for themselves as individuals. Home visits were an established part of our routine, and we found that the reorganisation gave us more time and staff, in order to be able to continue to do this. Every September, a year group of children would leave us to go into Y1, but our intake of new nursery age children would be staggered over the next month or so, in order to enable us to better support their settling. Our remaining 45 children, who had been the youngest, returned in the September as our 'oldest' -very confident and assured, returning, as they were, to a place and people they knew well and able to support the new children. The low numbers in the first 2 weeks of term, before we began admitting new children, meant that we were able to spend more time home visiting, when the children got to meet us on their home territory and we were able to tell parents about the EYU and answer their questions. Because all our places were full time, we were able to offer our children and their families a very flexible settling routine with individual settling programmes. Each child had a full time place, but the speed with which this was taken up depended on family circumstances and the child's readiness. There was no set procedure, as decisions were made in conjunction with parents and carers, based on observations of the children and a daily review of their settling. This way, we were able to ensure that children settled well, and for those children (or parents) who found the transition from home to school difficult, they could take all the time they needed, knowing that they weren't going to have to make another move until much later, in the September of their sixth year, when they joined Y1. I have to point out here, that there can be difficulties where the numbers include half form entries, because of the difficulties of budgeting for staff when admission into Y1 occurs only in September. Ideally all children should be able to remain in the unit until they become Y1 and should have a place in a unit at both F1 and F2. There are many other issues about numbers/ratios and part/full time places etc and as yet there are a multitude of variations from one authority to the next. Although the lack of current statutory guidance can be confusing, now is the perfect time to be shouting clearly and forcefully about what we believe ought to be the requirements for Foundation Stage settings. Environment We were very clear that we wanted to create an environment that provided both physical and emotional security for our children. The extra funding we had received allowed us to make some re-arrangements to the building, which mostly consisted of adding more toilets and removing doors to create an open plan space of interlinked rooms, which the children used freely. We gained a kitchen area which doubled up as a meeting room and a place where parents could retire to, when settling their children. And we 'stole' some more space from the school playground to create an L-shaped play area which we called the 'Garden'. The biggest fight we had at the time was with the borough's catering services, which not only wanted to provide us with 'prison' style plate trays, but expected us to use our largest room as a dining area where all 90 children would sit down at the same time! We fought that battle, and insisted that young children learning the personal and social skills related to eating and sharing food, need to eat from regular plates and bowls, drink from cups with wide bottoms, that don't topple over and to eat in small groups in calm, quiet surroundings. To this end we organised our rooms so that children could eat in their care groups, and to make it as much of a family style setting as possible. In the past, I had often been concerned about the nature of the lunchtime experience for reception children and I appreciated having the opportunity to establish new routines, and in a sense, a whole new way of thinking about this aspect of the children's day. We spent a lot of time and energy on problem-solving around it, constantly adapting and refining what we did, until we were sure that lunchtime, far from being something to be got through on the part of the children, and escaped from by teachers, (and to be left to other staff to deal with) had become a high point of the day for all of us. Something else that I appreciated having the opportunity to do, was to devote whole areas of space to particular aspects of the early years curriculum, such as role play, or large block play, and to have workshop areas for things like creative play, and independent maths and language activities. As a nursery class, our space had been limited, but as a reception teacher I had NEVER had enough space to accommodate all the resources I needed, in order to promote the kind of experiences I wanted to be constantly available for the children. For example, we were now able to devote a whole room to creative experiences, including space for children to initiate their own junk modelling, or cutting and sticking, or painting activities, because we now had room to store junk materials and other tools so that they were accessible to the children at all times. Not that unusual in some nursery settings, maybe, but often impossible in a small reception classroom with tables and chairs for 30 children. Role play areas could be extended and linked, allowing space for a permanent home corner as well as the necessary space ships, cafes, and caves as dictated by the children's interests. And, on many occasions, set up in a glorious and elaborate fashion outdoors in the garden, too! As with our nursery playground, the garden was to be in use throughout the day, with children having access to it constantly. This was quite an unusual notion then, if not for nursery children, then definitely for reception. Thankfully, the curriculum guidance for the foundation stage, with it's clear commitment to outdoor play has highlighted the need for reception children to have appropriate outdoor play space. It can be difficult for a lone reception teacher (or even a partnership of teacher and assistant) to supervise and, more importantly, engage in, out door activities made constantly available, but this was no longer a problem once we set up the unit, much to the benefit of the reception children. However we also had to be aware that the needs of much younger children were kept in mind, and the space was managed carefully, to ensure that older children didn't monopolise space or equipment. On a similar note, we knew that older or more experienced children would need to be able to concentrate on an extended piece of work with adult help - writing a story, or solving a maths problem, for example, and we didn't want the needs of much younger children to put this at risk . In a reception class you can ask the children to wait while you work with a child or group (with difficulty, but you can ask!) but you cannot (nor should you) have that expectation when working with 3 year olds But we would have 3, 4 and 5 year old children all exploring activities together in the same area. To this end, we designated one room as a quiet room, with a curtain that could be drawn to show that it was in use and those behind it were not to be disturbed. Children quickly grew to respect the particular nature of this room and appreciated being invited in to work with an adult on a directed task. We planned carefully for a balance of adult directed and child initiated activities, and our resource-based /workshop style environment promoted this. We kept a clipboard diary in each room which outlined not just the adult- led tasks that were planned for that area, but also the thematic resources that had been added to the general supply, for children to use independently and which would stimulate them to initiate their own activities. Structure of the day Historically, our nursery session had begun at 9.30 am, whilst the rest of the school began at 9.00. We retained this staggered start, for several reasons. Firstly, it served as a marker for children that they had moved into their second year with us, and was seen as a 'perk' of being one of the older ones, to come to school earlier and have a special time with the grown ups! Secondly, because these children were so well settled and confident with us and the environment, we were able to use this precious time for small group reading and language activities, in a way that wouldn't otherwise have been appropriate if children were newly settling into reception. This was useful some years later when we started being harangued by literacy consultants to prove that we were meeting the requirements of the literacy hour. We were satisfied, however, that our small groups, differentiated by experience, who were sharing books, playing with the alphabet and jumping up and down to nursery rhymes, were having good quality early literacy experiences, in a routine that suited them. We also saw significant learning taking place. By 9.30 the reception age children were exploring the unit both inside and out, having made choices about where they were going to begin the day's activity, and nursery age children were arriving with their parents into an already active setting. There was a breakfast club for those nursery children, (who were well enough settled) who had to come to school at 9.00 am with older siblings. As one of our main principles was the provision of opportunities for long, uninterrupted periods of sustained play, we would then do our best not to interfere with this! In the beginning, school assembly was at 9.30, and this was a convenient time for us to gather up a small group of children who were keen to attend assembly, (before they got stuck into something else) They would go up to the hall with one adult, leaving the unit with fewer children and plenty of other adults to greet the younger children as they arrived, helping them to settle in, and being relatively free to talk ( and listen) to parents. Sadly, with the onset of the literacy hour, assembly time was changed, and never again did the timing of assembly work quite as well for us and our children. I mention this fact, because this is an issue raised frequently by practitioners on the courses I run about setting up Foundation Stage Units. There is a real difficulty where historical routines and traditional perceptions of the reception class and its place in the primary school, prevail. In many schools there is little variation in the organisation of the day from class to class and year to year, often to make the best use of resources and space. But it is also largely driven by the curriculum and learning needs of older children and might not best support the needs of children in the reception class. It can be very difficult for a reception class to operate independently from the rest of the school. However, in my experience, it became much easier to argue from the perspective of a foundation stage unit, which involved a sizeable percentage of the schools children and staff. Being able to establish our own routines and timings for the day, (we even brought our lunch time forward to 11.30) made a huge difference to the school experience for our reception children. Links with the rest of the school But raising awareness amongst other practitioners of early years practice and principles, has always been a constant battle in primary schools. We were fortunate in that our head teacher, although she had no early years or infant experience, was supportive and keen to understand what we were trying to do and the ethos of the school, in general, was child centred. But we did have to stand firm against the desire on the part of the school for continuity, particularly when it came to planning and record keeping. Our argument was that 'continuity' , didn't just mean everyone doing the same thing on the same bit of paper. It was important that our planning was responsive, so a half termly forecast was completely inappropriate, but it seemed to me perfectly feasible that our planning systems could slot quite easily into the bigger picture of planning in the school, as a whole. We might not be spending hours and days out of school filling out planning sheets, in isolation from each other, because most of it was done in our weekly planning meetings, and it was done collaboratively, yet our planning was in much greater depth and covered a broader range of learning need. We won that battle, and were allowed to plan responsively, but it was clear that we needed to think constructively about how we ensured our curriculum independence (remember this was in the days before the Foundation Stage and the Early learning Goals even existed ) without finding ourselves isolated from the school or seen as 'little empire builders'! There were a few tears and tantrums along the way and the usual raised eyebrows and the 'there go the EYU lot again' scenarios, but we early years practitioners are used to that! We occasionally experienced a discreet glow of satisfaction though, when we heard aspects of our planning and assessment being suggested as innovations for KS1 and 2 as though they'd thought of it for themselves! The need to raise awareness of the principles of good early education amongst the staff in a primary school, is a serious matter, however. A lack of understanding contributes to the current 'top down/results led approach' that we are up against - and allows others to get away with making unreasonable demands on those of us in the Foundation Stage and our children. Constant communication amongst practitioners across the whole primary sector is required, and in particular, heads, senior managers and governors, need contextual training (that is, in their own foundation stage settings) to raise their levels of understanding and to increase their commitment to the principles of good practice in early years. It is particularly important that Y1 staff have training and support to understand the experiences that children have had in the Foundation stage, so that they can better understand the needs of the children transferring into their class, and to make them aware of how best to capitalise on all the learning that's already taken place. Teamwork I would also suggest that the coordinator of an all through Foundation Stage setting, should be a member of the senior management team as this guarantees the early years a voice in the school, but also because the managerial responsibilities can be enormous. Our unit was the size of a small school and demanded the day to day management of a large, multi disciplinary team of people, as well as the administrative tasks of admissions and the long term vision of a new initiative. Not to mention full time teaching! I came to it with a background of several years of deputy and acting headship - and I found it hard. It concerns me that some teachers with little or no management experience have found themselves in similar positions and inevitably have struggled. As with all team teaching situations, the make up of the team and the provision of opportunities for team building are vitally important. Teams don't gel overnight and can be subject to constant changes, particularly in a primary school where teaching staff change year groups regularly. We were particularly lucky in terms of the NNEB staff who worked with us. They held the vision, and between them trained the 15 or so teachers who passed through our EYU. They grew in confidence as they have shared the responsibility for planning and assessment and contributed greatly to the ongoing development of the unit. A real benefit for reception practitioners in a Foundation Stage Unit is the opportunity to work in a multi disciplinary team. And, where there is a positive approach to teamwork, it is inevitable that a flexibility of roles will develop. Children benefit from working with practitioners who are enthusiastic about all aspects of working with young children, whether it's meeting their physical, social or emotional needs or developing their academic skills. It is important, however, that teaching staff remember that other team members are likely to be less well paid than they are and that ultimate accountability rests with them. Observation and Planning Another important benefit we found from working across the nursery and reception age range, was the way it was made clear to us that that our differentiation was based much more on levels of experience rather than age or ability levels. We worked with inexperienced 3 year olds right through to very experienced 'nearly 6 year olds' AND very experienced 3 year olds, and nearly 6 year olds who were greatly lacking in experience. The experienced 3 year olds benefited from working alongside older children and the less experienced older child benefited from being able to remain longer in a play based environment that allows them to catch up on some of that experience without damage to their self esteem. Our planning reflected this in that activities and experiences were made available to all children and not designated as tasks for older or younger ones. What was important was the flexibility of outcomes from the tasks and the observations made by practitioners to enable them to match their interventions with children's learning needs. And seeing children as individual learners rather than creatures from planet nursery or planet reception! We encouraged ourselves to give weight to the 'possible learning outcomes' of an activity and not just the 'planned learning intentions' or 'key objectives' or whatever the current buzz word might be. This also helped us to focus on the learning that was taking place when the children were initiating their own activities, and helped practitioners understand that their role wasn't always to direct. Observation naturally played a huge part in our planning system, and a large chunk of our meeting time was devoted to analysis and collation of the mountains of post it notes and scraps of paper that we generated. All practitioners were encouraged to contribute to children's observations, and our experienced (but not necessary highly qualified) practitioners become skilled observers of children. I for one found it tremendously gratifying to benefit from the different perspectives that the team brought to observation of our children, and know that my responses and interactions with children were improved, as a result of their insight. The observations contributed to a formative record of children's achievements provided by Tower Hamlets, a fore runner of the Early learning Profile, and we collected used observations in a scrapbook for each child. We added to this photos, comments and examples of work and this was presented to each child and their families when they 'graduated' to Y1. A much more valuable and loved document, I found, than any 'report' could ever have been! Planning was multi-layered and at first glance, quite complex. But it was meaningful to us because it was generated from a drive to be responsive to the children's needs and interests, matched with our understanding of theories of early learning. Various features included Child Action plans, Room Diaries and Focus Plans that reflected not just topic knowledge but also skills and attitudes. We worked to a fortnightly planning cycle, with several topics running concurrently and continuing until they were no longer relevant or appropriate. We met each week, with one meeting, concentrating on our care groups (enabling a nursery nurse/teacher partnership to focus on their specific children ( eg reading and collating observations) and making decisions for action that could then be shared with the team as a whole. The other meeting would involve the whole team making decisions about action, activities and responsibilities for the coming fortnight. Transfer to Y1 As a nursery teacher, I had often said goodbye to children transferring to the reception class, knowing that some of them simply weren't ready for what came next and that if only I could hang on to them for a bit longer, they would get there and at their own pace. When children left our EYU to go into YI, whether or not they had achieved all their learning goals, or could read their 45 key words, I knew they had the confidence and emotional security to cope with life in 'the big school' and all that came next. It was not so much about short term achievements in terms of literacy or numeracy, or lining up quietly, but about the long term benefits of self-esteem and having positive dispositions towards learning. When we first set up the unit, I felt convinced that our approach was in the children's best interests. However, I was constantly required to explain and justify our way of working, to teaching staff and inspectors, who felt that our reception children were being denied appropriate teaching and learning experiences because they seemed to be playing all the time and having too much fun! These people did not have a sound understanding of early years pedagogy and we didn't have an official document to back us up. And then, at last, came the Foundation Stage and the curriculum guidance with it and we didn't look so out of place anymore!
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.